There is a resurrection of the dead: Jesus' proof by contradiction

[tonychanyt]

Jesus used proof by contradiction in Matthew 22:

31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

Assume there is no resurrection of the dead.

Exodus 3:

6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

The LORD is the God of Abraham.

Abraham is dead.

So, the LORD is the God of the dead!

But in reality, the LORD is the God of the living. This is the contradiction.

Therefore, the opposite of the assumption is true: There is a resurrection of the dead.

See also There is a resurrection of the dead: Paul's proof by contradiction

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Nice one! Also, I think there is in what they are saying:

i - the almost de rigueur false dichotomy combined with conflation: if they can't have 1 to 7, they can't have anything.

ii - essentialist fallacy. They dumb down meaning, whereas Jesus expands it to its true size.

These are WHY they failed to supply the formal contradiction - because they intuited it wouldn't be sound.

Influencers think we or Jesus should be influenced by influencing, and forget there can be good sense - which Holy Spirit indwelling and imparting will strengthen if needed, not weaken.

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew 22:

23The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question,​

Let proposition R1 = there is resurrection.

The Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection. They believe ¬R1.

24saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27After them all, the woman died. 28In **the resurrection**, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”​

Yet, their question assumes the resurrection.

Are the Sadducees being sarcastic?

They are trying to make the argument that there is no practical way to have a future resurrection with their "even God could not figure this one out" argument.

Now, it is Jesus' turn. Jesus also uses proof by contradiction (aka indirect proof):

He gives them a logical dilemma for which only the future resurrection is a solution.

Which is the only way to win a debate with a hostile audience.

Jesus proves the future resurrection from the dead to the Sadducees (a hostile audience) using the irrefutable fact that "God is not the God of the dead" such that only the future resurrection will solve the puzzle/problem he presents the Sadducees with.

Recall Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Matt 22:

23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’...

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, since you do not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together

Your problem is that your proposal would totally delete Christ's PROOF to the Sadducees of a future resurrection since none would be needed for "god to be the god of the dead" in your scenario - and not only that - but the Sadducees were JUST as inclined to REJECT the spirits of the dead as to reject the future resurrection. Jesus could not be trying to prove one totally rejected idea by appealing to yet another one that was also fully rejected.

You completely miss Christ's argument when you do that.

Jesus had the Sadducees in a bind - they already knew THESE things for DEAD CERTAIN -- that in their minds could NOT be controverted.
1. God is the one speaking to Moses in Exodus about Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
2. Moses is standing there listening to God at time long AFTER the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
3. God is NOT the god of the dead. No spirits of the dead , no ghosts etc.
4. God says he is the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob.

Jesus is simply reminding them of irrefutable facts that they already know to be true, are already known to accept -- and then Christ is pointing out that the ONE and ONLY way all these details fit together is if there is a FUTURE resurrection - so He says "31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead,".

They were "put to silence" as the text says because even they could not figure another way out of the dilemma other than Christ's statement "regarding the resurrection".. (which is the only way to have a compelling debate point with a hostile audience like the Sadducees that would "silence them")

IT is brilliant on Christ's part - but His logic only works one way -- and that is the way you seem to be certain cannot be true.